Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2004)BC200
1. This Appeal is preferred by the appellant against the impugned order passed by the Recovery Officer-I of this Tribunal dated 7.10.2002 (in IA 1/2002 in DRC No. 155/2001). In the impugned order under challenge the Recovery Officer has rejected the prayer of the 3rd party auction purchaser for making payment of the dues on the property sold to the appellant which amounts to Rs. 32,265/-.2. It is the contention of the appellant that the property was purchased by him on the basis of the Advertisement published in 'Dinamalar' dated 16.3.2002 and in the said Advertisement it was not mentioned that the property under sale is having some prior encumbrance and other dues. After taking possession of the said property only he was informed by the Association of the Apartment Owners (Queens Court Association) about certain dues, i.e. monthly maintenance, water tank repair charges, etc. It was further made clear to the purchaser that in case arrears of dues are cleared or paid by him, he would n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2004)BC236
1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the PO, DRT-1, Chennai, on the direction that the property of D3 should be sold only after exhausting the securities furnished by D1 and D2 and in case the amount realised is insufficient, then the balance may be recovered by selling the security furnished by D3 and also awarding interest pendente life and future at 11% simple, the appellant Bank has come forward with this appeal, 2. With regard to the first point that the properly of D3 should be sold only after exhausting the securities furnished by D1 and D2, Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that D3 is the guarantor and D3 executed the guarantee document and the Bank is entitled to proceed against the principal debtors and the guarantor and the liability of the principal debtors and guarantor is co-extensive and the Bank cannot be deprived of its opportunity to proceed against the property of the guarantor and it should not be directed that the Bank should proceed only against D1 and D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2005)BC39
1. Final order was passed in the O.A. 1507/2001 on 7.1.2002. The respondent defendants filed IA 166/2003 praying the Tribunal to record full settlement of decree passed in O.A. 1507/2001 and subsequently direct the Bank to discharge the mortgage and to release the original document of the title deeds in respect of the mortgaged property. The defendants also filed IA 167/2003 to set aside the order of attachment after recording full settlement of the decree. The PO, DRTII, Chennai allowed those petitions. Aggrieved against that order, theappellant Bank has preferred these appeals.2. The Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that compromise was effected for the two Original Applications (O.As.) pending before the DRT, i.e. O.A. 1507/2001 and O.A. 912/2001 and only for settlement of both the matters, the defendants were allowed to sell the property and settle the matters and the defendants now cannot say that they will settle only one matter and the other matter they won't settle and pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2004)BC118
1. The appellant has preferred the appeal as against the decree on the basis of the Compromise Memo filed by both parties. The Office of this Tribunal has raised the question as to how the appeal is maintainable since Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the RDBD & FI Act states that "No appeal shall lie to the appellate Tribunal from an order made by a Tribunal with the consent of the parties." 2. Today, the matter has been heard on the question of maintainability of the appeal. Both the parties have signed the Compromise Memo and filed the Compromise Memo before the DRT-II, Chennai. Counsel for the appellants submits that the defendants have signed only in the last page of the Compromise Memo and they have not signed in the 1st and 2nd page and only the Counsel for the applicant and defendants have signed in the 1 st and 2nd page and in the last page only all the defendants and the Counsels for both parties have signed and the 1 st and 2nd page conditions are not known to the defend...
Tag this Judgment!